Welcome to the PokéCommunity!

Hi there! Thanks for visiting PokéCommunity. We’re a group of Pokémon fans dedicated to providing the best place on the Internet for discussing ideas and sharing fan-made content. Welcome! We’re glad you’re here.

In order to join our community we need you to create an account with us. Doing so will allow you to make posts, submit and view fan art and fan fiction, download fan-made games, and much more. It’s quick and easy; just click here and follow the instructions.

The RoundtableHave a seat at the Roundtable for in-depth discussions, extended or serious conversations, and current events. From world news to talks on life, growing up, relationships, and issues in society, this is the place to be.
Come be a knight.

"Also, one might say if Trayvon wasn't involved in suspicious behavior he may not have aggressed at Zimmerman." just exactly what are you trying to mean with this phrase? If he wasn't a thug than maybe he could've avoided getting a cap blown up his ass? What, was he asking for it?

Please don't insert racist inferences, there is clearly an illogical line of reasoning and comprehension of the post. That statement was in response to the point that without Zimmerman's actions, there would have been no conflict, but it is also true that without trayvon's conduct, there would not have been a conflict. The conflict was only possible with both actions, rather than one's actions. Further, Trayvon was walking in private property, under the eaves of the homes, that is trespassing. Simply, Trayvon had a responsiblity to not engage in illegal behavior just as much as Zimmerman was responsible for confronting Trayvon on his own terms. Regardless of race, a person walking in people's property in the night is suspicious, race, age, gender, ect, are all irreverent to that point.

Quote:

I don't know why you have to bring up his history as if it makes a difference here. When a creepy man is behind you and following you around, I don't think your response is "oh this muthaf must die". Maybe Trayvon is a thug, and maybe he wanted to beat Zimmerman's head in, but I doubt that there would be any intent to kill. At the end of the day neither of them wanted to kill, but if one of them is equipped with a firearm and the other is equipped with his fists, I think it's quite obvious which one is going to die

What history am I bringing up? I am only going back to the history of that night and the illegal behavior that Trayvon was engaging in as far as property trespassing. The history of why Zimmerman approached is a pertinent article of information.

Additionally, there is no evidence that Trayvon was a thug, which I am assuming means gang affiliated, and I never inference that. Simply, he only needed to potentially cause great bodily harm, which is very possible in a hand-to-hand scuffle. Without the use of a firearm, Zimmerman could have suffered brain injuries with repeated blows to the head. Which may or may not have been the case, but the prosecution failed to demonstrate enough of a case against this point with the medical witnesses.

Quote:

All this case was trying was whether or not Zimmerman can justify shooting his gun as self-defense. Which means all the defense has to do is make it look like Zimmerman's life was in immediate danger of ending. Perhaps there was reasonable doubt. Doesn't stop him from being an ******* though, and one's record of *******ry doesn't really count in this world. Common sense dictates that you don't approach someone the way Zimmerman did. You can be a total idiot, and get yourself into a position in which you "have" to shoot someone, but you're still a total idiot. Maybe the vice in what Zimmerman did cannot be judged by law, but it was still viceful. Zimmerman did something wrong, only that it doesn't count for anything

.I don't even want to talk about your last paragraph. If that isn't troll material, I don't know what is. You don't have to come across as having attitude.

Again, self-defense has to prove that the defendant believed he may have suffered great bodily harm or death if he did not use of self-defense. Also, Zimmerman was not using good judgment, I think mostly everyone would agree to that point. But, getting himself in a risky situation doesn't mean that he relegate the legal right to self-defense if attacked.

I am only using my analytically skills in order to make a less volatile and emotive commentary on the trial, which is not conducive with "trolling". A trial of which many people on both sides have expressed a propensity to use inflammatory language, against both of the individuals involved (and their supporters), and making inferences based on personal beliefs rather than evidentiary support. In doing so, both sides that engage in such volatile discussion are doing so at the expense of reason, by which is required to have a civil and productive discussion. I urge others to do the same rather than making this a personal affair for mudslinging.

EDIT: On an unrelated note, those who condone the acquittal should not be label as racists. I am not saying anyone on here did, but generally, it is disconcerting to see it happening. Myself, I was completely up-in-arms about the Trayvon Martin murder when I was first notified of the killing, at which point I believed race was a factor. However, I have payed close attention to the aftermath, at which point I tried to be the most objective, and not interject my personal feelings into my perception of the proceedings based off media hysteria. So with that, I advise everyone to no make any premature judgement in respect to racial sentiments.

I'm not gonna lie i think justice has been served.. cause the evidence matched his story to the letter. Don't get me wrong he did profile trayvon, he stalked him, and instigated the situation and I feel bad trayvon was murdered, but I don't like how they are trying to paint the kid to be a saint, when no one anymore is a saint, plus reports said he was high at the time. Another thing that bothers me is if zimmerman had gotten killed trayvon woulda been called a hero and said he did it outta self defense it wouldn't have made national headlines and all that other crap.. the only reason its a big deal is cause the color of their skin, cause had this been a black on black crime or white on white no one would really have given a crap.. like seriously. people may disagree with my opinion here but its a free country and im allowed to such just like zimmerman is allowed to be a racist douche..

This is my objective opinion based on the evidence presented and the stories given

EDIT: I had to edit this post after reading some of the comments in this thread,

The thing most of you guys seem to be stuck on is he shouldn't have followed trayvon, and listened to the dispatcher.. While I agree with that point, that is NOT what he was on trial for. That is what most of you fail to realize or think about. He was on trial for the shooting. Not for disobeying what he was told, not for profiling the kid. So while I agree he was wrong to do such things, again its not what he was on trial for. Also i seen someone here say "he should not have had a gun on him" this is incorrect, if he had the proper paperwork/credentials to carry a concealed weapon its his 2nd amendment right to keep/bear arms and the use of that gun was protected by flordia's law of self defense. So that is why he wasn't arrested, it would have been a violation of his constitutional rights as an american.

Another thing why he was found not guilty, cause the persecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt this was a planned killing or a hate crime, meaning he planed to shoot the kid from the jump which is very hard. That also goes with them having to prove without a reasonable doubt that it wasn't self defense which is also hard to do, especially when the evidence seems to support the self defense claim. The persecution was fighting an up hill battle the whole time and they didn't have sufficient evidence to win the case.

To be honest, Zimmerman & Trayvon were both in the wrong. Neither of them should have did what they did. Someone died, someone didn't. Its the way it happened. What people seem to have been doing is bringing race into it, and making it about the color of the skin even more now that a Not Guilty verdict was reached, Some misinformed people are calling Zimmerman white/cracker, when he is however what I believe to be a Mexican(Hispanic), I may be wrong. However his race doesnt matter, it should of never had, but it did and that is why a local florida case got national attention in the first place, which is wrong. Also they are saying things like "the white man got off" and other things as such, making it about race. Which are making the ones saying that a bunch of hypocrites but as I said before and its in the video above its mentions, that when O.J got off for killing his "white" wife, no one screamed injustice or anything of the sorts. They were proud and happy, which really makes me mad. It also shows what morales people really have.

Racism won't die because blacks(African Americans) wont let it die, they use the race card to this day to get by, or get something to go their way.. Its very unfair, and the reason racism still exist.

White is not just a race. George Zimmerman has a name and skin tone that can pass as white. That is all you need to qualify for white privilege. Like I said previously; this case didn't get the attention it did because it was a white man killing an unarmed black child. It got the attention it did because of racist police not even trying to arrest a black childs killer- which is what sparked the online petitions that gained mass attention.

To say "we don't know if he was racist" is to ignore his behaviour regarding POC previously. The amount of times he called the cops on POC for nothing is absurd. He is also a rapist.

If you don't fully understand how white privilege influenced this case and many others, do not put down others for bringing race into it. Your last statement about POC being the ones not letting racism die is highly ignorant. You are also victim blaming.

White is not just a race. George Zimmerman has a name and skin tone that can pass as white. That is all you need to qualify for white privilege. Like I said previously; this case didn't get the attention it did because it was a white man killing an unarmed black child. It got the attention it did because of racist police not even trying to arrest a black childs killer- which is what sparked the online petitions that gained mass attention.

You must have completely ignored my paragraph on even if they wanted to arrest him, they could not... 17 also is not a child you guys act like he was 12 or something. But if you really think it has nothing to do with skin tone ur being foolish, and your whole post was "a racist one" and its clear your opinions are fueled by race. You're not being objective or rational. your letting your feelings on the situation fuel ur words and opinions. Had zimmerman been killed I know u would not be this upset. it would have been "justified", when no one was there no one can say what wasn't or was justified. The fact he was young has nothing to do with why your so upset. it never did. But again your pulling the race card cause it is convenient for you. How many children between the ages of 3-14 are killed everyday by black on black crime, or by just killers in general, how many are never caught or arrested cause lack of evidence. How upset are you for those children, for those families? I live in philly, i see it everyday, i hear the bullets, i hear the screams.. so dont sit there n tell me its not about race or never was..

Quote:

To say "we don't know if he was racist" is to ignore his behaviour regarding POC previously. The amount of times he called the cops on POC for nothing is absurd. He is also a rapist.

not sure if that was directed at me but if it was I don't believe I ever made such a statement. Infact i said the opposite, stating I believe he was racist. About being a rapist I cant comment on that cause i don't even know where you got that piece of information.

I don't understand how someone can believe that a person who instigates a confrontation that leads to someone's death can be innocent. I'm not saying necessarily that if you start a fight you're 100% responsible for everything that happens in it, but you're at least partially responsible. And to instigate something after the police tell you not to, while armed is incredibly reckless. Acting reckless is not something you should do. We have laws against reckless endangerment.

Quote:

The accused person isn't required to intend the resulting or potential harm, but must have acted in a way that showed a disregard for the foreseeable consequences of the actions.

Someone in a neighborhood watch should know that better than most people. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that Zimmerman had no bad intentions, no racial bias, and that Trayvon was hostile, Zimmerman brought a gun into the mix. He escalated things needlessly.

First off, Zimmerman was wrong with approaching Martin. His mistake, thus his fault for whatever injuries he sustained.

Second, Martin was wrong in attacking Zimmerman (out of, what we can assume, fear for his life). That, however, isn't much against a dead man.

Zimmerman could've avoided all of this and prevented Martin's death ifhe did what he was told. Unfortunately for Martin, though, he was pretty stubborn for a wannabe cop and intentionally followed him.

Zimmerman caused the mess, and finished the mess. He was completely at fault for everything that happened to him and Martin. Not only that, all of his claims and stories are solely against the word of a dead man. How fair is that?

Nonetheless, all jurors in any case are specifically instructed that, if in the case of "reasonable doubt", to plead not guilty. That's general business in a case without any witnesses that aren't suspects, normally.

__________________

I want to have my hand held tightly,
and be woven in a hug
I wanna be sung to, put on the spot
And told I'm really what you want
I want roses, I want flowers; I want a kiss too
Can you show everyone how special I am to you?
Can you carry me in your arms?

That same me wants to protect, to uphold
To look out for you and ensure your health
I'd take the fall for what's wrong with you
Do you want to be carried? To have your hand held?
I would write a sonata for you as soon as the inspiration came
We could go on an adventure, I could be your guide
We'll be like little kids again, with all the fun and bliss

We'll have the time of our lives, we'll be lovers under the moon
Sipping lemon and breathing in the mountains
And we'll go to sleep as one and never wake up

This is a bit much (to say the least). Racism doesn't exist solely because of the black community by any means. It remains in existence largely as a residual reminiscence of racism observed since the 1600's onward in the US. Though, there are certain issue in which race should not be a factor or a point of contention, that doesn't mean that there doesn't exists issues in which true racial tensions do exist. The existing relations are in part aggravated by civil rights advocates, that detract from substantive issues that are systemic and affect the population broadly, and thereby close off certain pathways of dialogue pertaining to issues of poverty and crime in the black community. Those are issue that need to be addressed, not isolated incidences that don't have a broad effect on the general public. These issues, do involve race, and therefore, discounting racial tensions and statistical evidence that supports the claim that there exists flaws in public policy that affects blacks in the U.S. is non-productive. Further, overreaching generalizations of an entire demographic's behavior is in of itself an agitator of racial tensions given that there is nothing to substantiate your claim rather than a subjective bias.

Quote originally posted by AlexTheRose:

Here's what I think.

First off, Zimmerman was wrong with approaching Martin. His mistake, thus his fault for whatever injuries he sustained.

Second, Martin was wrong in attacking Zimmerman (out of, what we can assume, fear for his life). That, however, isn't much against a dead man.

Zimmerman could've avoided all of this and prevented Martin's death ifhe did what he was told. Unfortunately for Martin, though, he was pretty stubborn for a wannabe cop and intentionally followed him.

Zimmerman caused the mess, and finished the mess. He was completely at fault for everything that happened to him and Martin. Not only that, all of his claims and stories are solely against the word of a dead man. How fair is that?

Nonetheless, all jurors in any case are specifically instructed that, if in the case of "reasonable doubt", to plead not guilty. That's general business in a case without any witnesses that aren't suspects, normally.

Again, a subjective, completely one-dimensional analysis of the events that occurred. We cannot place 100% of the blame of the iniation of verbal conflict on zimmerman as he did have a legitimate claim given that Trayvon was engaging in the illegal and suspicious act of trespassing. More than one witness corroborated his actions. Thus, it can be assumed that if Trayvon had not had been trespassing the death would not have occurred just as must as we can say without Zimmerman's actions Trayvon's death would not have occurred. Please try to observe both sides arguments, as they are valid points, but only if the concession is made that acknowledges the fault of both parties vis-a-vis the involvement in commencing the verbal conflict.

No matter who starts a verbal conflict though, is outside of the law as it pertains to the physical conflict and the use of self-defense. And this is the difficult key fact of the case, which is who initiated the physical conflict, and was the defendant in a position is which belief of great bodily harm or death could have happened if he did not use his gun in defense. Thus, the initiator of the verbal confrontation is not a defining article of information in assessing whether this was self-defense or not. Yes, we can all agree it is troubling that Zimmerman followed Trayvon, but the law doesn't state that following a person who is observed engaging in illegal and suspicious activity is illegal in of itself.

"Second, Martin was wrong in attacking Zimmerman (out of, what we can assume, fear for his life). That, however, isn't much against a dead man."

Fear of his life was not substantiated in court. In being confronted for illegal activity, Martin could have feared being apprehended by the authorities, ect, as simply being confronted for illegal behavior doesn't grant a person the ability to respond by physical means. However, it cannot be proven who commenced the actual physical element of the confrontation. Thus, the prosecutor was unable to demonstrate that Zimmerman was the physical aggressor, of which the burden of proof is on the prosecutor's bench, whereas the defense was able to demonstrate reasonably that Zimmerman was in a position in which great bodily harm could be done. The only article that was not substantiated either way, was who iniated the physical attack, again which is a fact in which the prosecution has the burden. What would happen to our justice system if we are allowed to convict someone without the evidence necessary to demonstrate guilt?

"Not only that, all of his claims and stories are solely against the word of a dead man. How fair is that?"

This is true of many cases of self-defense, just because the alleged aggressor is dead does not mean that the defendant's story should not be taken into account along with the other witnesses' and officials' testimonies.

We cannot place 100% of the blame of the iniation of verbal conflict on zimmerman as he did have a legitimate claim given that Trayvon was engaging in the illegal and suspicious act of trespassing. More than one witness corroborated his actions. Thus, it can be assumed that if Trayvon had not had been trespassing the death would not have occurred just as must as we can say without Zimmerman's actions Trayvon's death would not have occurred. Please try to observe both sides arguments, as they are valid points, but only if the concession is made that acknowledges the fault of both parties vis-a-vis the involvement in commencing the verbal conflict.

Where did this trespassing allegation come from? I never heard anything about it.

Quote originally posted by Fenneking:

No matter who starts a verbal conflict though, is outside of the law as it pertains to the physical conflict and the use of self-defense. And this is the difficult key fact of the case, which is who initiated the physical conflict, and was the defendant in a position is which belief of great bodily harm or death could have happened if he did not use his gun in defense. Thus, the initiator of the verbal confrontation is not a defining article of information in assessing whether this was self-defense or not. Yes, we can all agree it is troubling that Zimmerman followed Trayvon, but the law doesn't state that following a person who is observed engaging in illegal and suspicious activity is illegal in of itself.

Considering Zimmerman was the only one to confirm that, of course it was.

Quote originally posted by Fenneking:

In being confronted for illegal activity, Martin could have feared being apprehended by the authorities, ect, as simply being confronted for illegal behavior doesn't grant a person the ability to respond by physical means.

However, it cannot be proven who commenced the actual physical element of the confrontation. Thus, the prosecutor was unable to demonstrate that Zimmerman was the physical aggressor, of which the burden of proof is on the prosecutor's bench, whereas the defense was able to demonstrate reasonably that Zimmerman was in a position in which great bodily harm could be done. The only article that was not substantiated either way, was who iniated the physical attack, again which is a fact in which the prosecution has the burden.

So it's Trayvon's side of the courtroom that has to deal with Zimmerman's shoddy retelling of what happened?

Quote originally posted by Fenneking:

This is true of many cases of self-defense, just because the alleged aggressor is dead does not mean that the defendant's story should not be taken into account along with the other witnesses' and officials' testimonies.

Personally, I think it should, in any case, definitely questioned. You wouldn't want that though, would you? Also, didn't you say earlier that they couldn't be sure who the aggressor was? Methinks you did .

I've avoided this thread for long enough, but I guess I'll add in my 2¢ about the Zimmerman case..

Honestly, I was upset to see that Zimmerman got away with what he did. It may be true that he didn't murder Martin, but what I dislike him about is that he clearly did not follow Sanford Police's orders when they told him not to follow after Martin. That, my friends, is being a vigilante. However, I do believe that Zimmerman is at fault and he should have been proven guilty of murder (or manslaughter), because he used lethal force against Martin, which is a stronger force than fists. Not only was this case a trial against a crime Zimmerman was convicted of, it was a challenge to Florida's 'stand your ground' self-defense law.

I've avoided this thread for long enough, but I guess I'll add in my 2¢ about the Zimmerman case..

Honestly, I was upset to see that Zimmerman got away with what he did. It may be true that he didn't murder Martin, but what I dislike him about is that he clearly did not follow Sanford Police's orders when they told him not to follow after Martin. That, my friends, is being a vigilante. However, I do believe that Zimmerman is at fault and he should have been proven guilty of murder (or manslaughter), because he used lethal force against Martin, which is a stronger force than fists. Not only was this case a trial against a crime Zimmerman was convicted of, it was a challenge to Florida's 'stand your ground' self-defense law.

A dispatcher isn't the police, and they can't give legal binding orders or they can be legally held liable. Manslaughter is the intent to kill someone with malice, so he can't be charged with that since all he did was defend himself. He used lethal force because he was well within his rights to do so, considering he was almost beaten to death. However I believe he didn't intend to kill Treyvon, since he could only fire his gun blindly(I'd like to see you see well with your face covered in blood from a broken nose and it's raining at night).

A dispatcher isn't the police, and they can't give legal binding orders or they can be legally held liable. Manslaughter is the intent to kill someone with malice, so he can't be charged with that since all he did was defend himself. He used lethal force because he was well within his rights to do so, considering he was almost beaten to death. However I believe he didn't intend to kill Treyvon, since he could only fire his gun blindly(I'd like to see you see well with your face covered in blood from a broken nose and it's raining at night).

Sure, and a kid isn't going to be punished legally for disobeying their parents and doing something stupid. Whether or not disobeying dispatcher orders is illegal is missing the point that he didn't follow sensible instruction. Also, nobody knows if he was almost beaten to death. A broken nose and lacerations will not kill you. He certainly didn't have a concussion, considering how he was able to recount his side of the story immediately after the shooting occurred. To go from those injuries to predicting that Martin would have killed him turns every human body into a weapon >> These injuries, which is common knowledge, tell me that Zimmerman was not at the verge of death. You can get much worse practicing martial arts. If Martin had a knife, then yeah Zimmerman should be scared. But he didn't have one. And Zimmerman shooting Martin because he reached for the gun is a weak argument. I could get away with shooting anybody lol as long as they reach for my firearm.

Zimmerman could have been had for imperfect self-defence, offing Martin and believing it was necessary when it actually wasn't and unreasonable. It would still be manslaughter though, because that's the murder-without-intent sentence. The question is whether or not Zimmerman shooting Martin was reasonable at that point in time (getting beaten up, on the ground etc.).

To clarify, first degree murder is the murder of someone that is willful and premeditated. For Zimmerman, this could be the case (considering he followed Martin), but most people believe not. Second degree murder is the murder of someone that is not premeditated or planned in advance. To me, this seems to fit Zimmerman's situation, and is where you misspoke on the line between second and third degree murder. Voluntary manslaughter, also known as third degree murder, is the murder of someone that involved extenuating circumstances that would make the killer emotionally or mentally unstable. This is kind of a stretch to me, though it seems some think otherwise.

To clarify, first degree murder is the murder of someone that is willful and premeditated. For Zimmerman, this could be the case (considering he followed Martin), but most people believe not. Second degree murder is the murder of someone that is not premeditated or planned in advance. To me, this seems to fit Zimmerman's situation, and is where you misspoke on the line between second and third degree murder. Voluntary manslaughter, also known as third degree murder, is the murder of someone that involved extenuating circumstances that would make the killer emotionally or mentally unstable. This is kind of a stretch to me, though it seems some think otherwise.

I believe that Zimmerman believes that he never meant to kill Martin. I also believe that he tried to defend himself. Imperfect self-defense would be a manslaughter sentence even though it involves poor judgment and disproportionate force vs. emotional states. I don't agree with 2nd degree murder because self-defense precludes murder, and yes I think Zimmerman acted in self-defense. A murder, whether of first or second degree, is an intentional killing, and I think it's a hard argument to make that Zimmerman intended to kill Martin. Second degree murder is like spur of the moment, you're thinking of killing - but that thought was pretty instantaneous.

Sure, and a kid isn't going to be punished legally for disobeying their parents and doing something stupid. Whether or not disobeying dispatcher orders is illegal is missing the point that he didn't follow sensible instruction. Also, nobody knows if he was almost beaten to death. A broken nose and lacerations will not kill you. He certainly didn't have a concussion, considering how he was able to recount his side of the story immediately after the shooting occurred. To go from those injuries to predicting that Martin would have killed him turns every human body into a weapon >> These injuries, which is common knowledge, tell me that Zimmerman was not at the verge of death. You can get much worse practicing martial arts. If Martin had a knife, then yeah Zimmerman should be scared. But he didn't have one. And Zimmerman shooting Martin because he reached for the gun is a weak argument. I could get away with shooting anybody lol as long as they reach for my firearm.

Zimmerman could have been had for imperfect self-defence, offing Martin and believing it was necessary when it actually wasn't and unreasonable. It would still be manslaughter though, because that's the murder-without-intent sentence. The question is whether or not Zimmerman shooting Martin was reasonable at that point in time (getting beaten up, on the ground etc.).

I'm not sure about the likelihood of choking to death on my own blood. But what you're saying opens the door to someone opening fire on anybody who manages to get on top of them and bloody his or her nose. That is a disproportionate use of force, and even if you lack the ability to use lesser force it does not open the doorway to using excessive force.

um props to everyone who managed to not explode into tears at this point :x

But I have one interesting point people seems to have missed - wasn't Zimmerman Hispanic (or part idek Zimmerman is a German case) or something? So why does this show racism between black and white communities?

Then again, Mexicans are also known to dislike blacks (if George Lopez can be trusted) so I wouldn't know.

But that's besides the point. What I'm trying to get at, is that if that was true, wouldn't the protests in Oakland, LA, etc. of black people seem kinda overdoing it?

And even if this is a case of black v. white, are the riots overreacting?

ngl you guys using emotions to judge right now…what we need in situations like these are rational, non-biased minds (or portions of minds).

This applies to everyone talking here. I'm not handing out infractions even if I wanted to (because I can't), but rather this is just a plea for you guys to start using some rational thought. Because tbh this is just as bad as the Republicans who are like "ghey ppl r horribl" except it's socially acceptable. Wtf really guys? I don't mean to insult but this is what is wrong with our society. I fully support reason and freedom of choice and all that ****, but with that comes a responsibility to act rationally when possible, even if against what your emotions are.

We're pointing out that a dispatcher isn't a police officer and that their instructions not because we are missing the point, but because pretty much no one else realizes this and keeps saying that he 'should have listened to the police'.

As for his injuries, his head was bloodied up pretty nice. Not just his nose - He had blood on the back as well. The nose can be written off as one to the face, but the only way you'd get the injuries to the back of the head is if someone was bashing your head against the ground.

We can argue that this was a move of self-defense... But honestly? If you think shooting someone in self-defense is a overreaction, the same can also be said of bashing a persons skull.

Edit - I find it odd that, for all their hatred of racism, most anti-racists are more then willing to judge Zimmerman by his skin color. Well, misjudge - They say he's white and when it's pointed out that he isn't they always follow up with a "Well... uh... his skin looks white, he has a whiteish sounding name, and uh... *random change of subject here*"

As for Zimmerman he's either Mexican or Peruvian. I'm not quite sure really. He looks Mexican but I think I remember reading that his mother was Peruvian.

Was he a nice kid, studying for the SAT, trying to make people eat their preconceptions about thuggy black kids?

Did he have lots of nice friends from various races? Did he pick his based on commitment to studying, or they were nice?

Was he timid?

If so, I would say that this is a racial killing. From what I would know of him, he wouldn't have wanted to get into any trouble, wouldn't have wanted to have himself in the possibility of getting shot.

However, what if he was "thuggy"?

Just embraced that black people were gonna be *****s, and went with it?

Or otherwise, was he one of the mean pseudo-"ghetto" teenagers? And trust me, I know they exist in every color and race so this has nothing to do about being black.

In that case, it would go either way. He's not innocent - he would be willing to kick some ass if it came down to that.

So there's that.

And I believe he was suspended when the incident happened, so i that's true, we can see something about his school behavior reflected…

Protests are how change can begin. Sitting home while innocent people are being killed by privileged folks and cops who have forgotten their duty does justice for no one. The protests have little to do with one coloured man killing a different coloured man, and more to do with outrage towards a system that cares more for killers that walk than the underprivileged they murder.

I would just like to point out that in this thread alone people have called Trayvon a thug, said he was tresspassing, and regarded him as a drug addict because he 'had traces of pot in his system'. For no reason other than because the word "black" is in his description. So can people please stop asking why race is being brought into the case by people who point out the racism of others and the system? Because it's not.

We have a lot to protest about in the U.S, and it's definitely not overreacting.

Protests are how change can begin. Sitting home while innocent people are being killed by privileged folks and cops who have forgotten their duty does justice for no one. The protests have little to do with one coloured man killing a different coloured man, and more to do with outrage towards a system that cares more for killers that walk than the underprivileged they murder.

I would just like to point out that in this thread alone people have called Trayvon a thug, said he was tresspassing, and regarded him as a drug addict because he 'had traces of pot in his system'. For no reason other than because the word "black" is in his description. So can people please stop asking why race is being brought into the case by people who point out the racism of others and the system? Because it's not.

We have a lot to protest about in the U.S, and it's definitely not overreacting.

So, how saintly do you have to be before you're allowed to punch some guy following you with a gun? And, uh, he was suspended for being late to school, graffiti, and owning a 'baggie'. Hardly criminal acts. I was late to school every day. Is my murder justified because I arrived to school at 7:46 and not 7:45?

I don't mean to sound off-topic, I just want to point out how unfair racist double-standards are, especially to the dead. Trayvons past has no place in this case because he is not the prejudiced one that provoked the conflict out of racial profiling and fear of dark people.

I got suspended, and I know that that's some serious stuff outside of a detention, but I understand that sometimes they get too crazy (believe me I understand stupid suspensions :p)

But the main thing here is his personality. Would he be aggressive, or would he try his best to get out of it? Now, nobody's saint or Satan, so I'm not calling him evil or saintly.

But just keep in mind that you don't know him as a friend (and if you do, I apologize) so you wouldn't know how he would react, and to what level of threat. And that would factor in to how much of a "self-defense" it really was.

So. This has nothing to do with his righteousness. Just keep that in mind please :p

Dispatcher: Sanford Police Department. ...
Zimmerman: Hey, we've had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there's a real suspicious guy, uh, [near] Retreat View Circle. Um, the best address I can give you is 111 Retreat View Circle. This guy looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about.
Dispatcher: Okay, and this guy is he white, black, or Hispanic?
Zimmerman: He looks black.
Dispatcher: Did you see what he was wearing?
Zimmerman: Yeah. A dark hoodie, like a grey hoodie, and either jeans or sweatpants and white tennis shoes. He's [unintelligible], he was just staring...
Dispatcher: Okay, he's just walking around the area...
Zimmerman: ...looking at all the houses.
Dispatcher: Okay...
Zimmerman: Now he's just staring at me.
Dispatcher: Okay. You said it's 1111 Retreat View? Or 111?
Zimmerman: That's the clubhouse... [Note 3, 3rd picture]
Dispatcher: That's the clubhouse. Do you know what the—he's near the clubhouse right now?
Zimmerman: Yeah, now he's coming towards me.
Dispatcher: Okay.
Zimmerman: He's got his hand in his waistband. And he's a black male.
Dispatcher: How old would you say he looks?
Zimmerman: He's got a button on his shirt. Late teens.
Dispatcher: Late teens. Okay.
Zimmerman: Something's wrong with him. Yup, he's coming to check me out. He's got something in his hands. I don't know what his deal is.(No **** he's checking you out >>)
Dispatcher: Just let me know if he does anything, okay?
Zimmerman: How long until you get an officer over here?
Dispatcher: Yeah, we've got someone on the way. Just let me know if this guy does anything else.
Zimmerman: Okay. These *******s, they always get away. When you come to the clubhouse, you come straight in and make a left. Actually, you would go past the clubhouse.[Note 3, 3rd picture]
Dispatcher: So it's on the lefthand side from the clubhouse?
Zimmerman: No, you go in straight through the entrance and then you make a left...uh, you go straight in, don't turn, and make a left. ****, he's running [car door open warning chimes heard]. (This sounds like he's going down Twin Trees, since according to Zimmerman you go straight in, /don't/ turn, and then make a left - though that's rather redundant considering there's no intersection)
Dispatcher: He's running? Which way is he running?
Zimmerman: Down towards the other entrance to the neighborhood.
Dispatcher: Which entrance is that that he's heading towards?
Zimmerman: The back entrance...****ing [disputed/unintelligible] (I think he thinks Trayvon's trying to make a getaway through the other entrance)
Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah.
Dispatcher: Okay, we don't need you to do that.
Zimmerman: Okay.
Dispatcher: All right, sir, what is your name?
Zimmerman: George...He ran.
Dispatcher: All right, George, what's your last name?
Zimmerman: Zimmerman.
Dispatcher: And George, what's the phone number you're calling from?
Zimmerman: [redacted]
Dispatcher: All right, George, we do have them on the way. Do you want to meet with the officer when they get out there?
Zimmerman: Yeah.
Dispatcher: Alright, where you going to meet with them at?
Zimmerman: If they come in through the gate, tell them to go straight past the club house, and uh, straight past the club house and make a left, and then they go past the mailboxes, [Note 3, 4th picture] that's my truck...[unintelligible]
Dispatcher: What address are you parked in front of?
Zimmerman: I don't know. It's a cut through so I don't know the address.[Note 3, 6th & 7th pictures]
Dispatcher: Okay. Do you live in the area?
Zimmerman: Yeah, I...[unintelligible]
Dispatcher: What's your apartment number?
Zimmerman: It's a home. It's 1950,[Note 3, 3rd picture] Oh, crap. I don't want to give it all out. I don't know where this kid is.
Dispatcher: Okay. Do you want to just meet with them right near the mailboxes then?
Zimmerman: Yeah, that's fine.
Dispatcher: All right, George. I'll let them know to meet you around there okay?
Zimmerman: Actually, could you have them call me and I'll tell them where I'm at?
Dispatcher: Okay, yeah. That's no problem.
Zimmerman: Should I give you my number or you got it?
Dispatcher: Yeah, I got it [redacted]
Zimmerman: Yeah, you got it.
Dispatcher: Okay. No problem. I'll let them know to call you when they're in the area.
Zimmerman: Thanks.
Dispatcher: You're welcome.[73]

http://goo.gl/maps/niyWq <-- this is where it happened. He entered it on the north entrance most likely, a quick search for 7 11 in the search bar will reveal why. The following image details the points of interest:

Personally I don't see what's so suspicious about not following the road and sidewalks, I use shortcuts all the time >> And I suppose it's easy to trespass when there aren't any backyards. You can trace the path of least resistance by yourself. I don't see any bushes. Check out the streetview of the neighbourhood, it's a really nice place.

Anyways, here's some actual evidence for once. Do what you want, rip it apart. I've had enough of people equating lacerations to life-threatening injuries and "trespassing". Considering Zimmerman's phone call, Trayvon was on the road until he checked him out and started running. So for the people who are talking about "considering the facts", get the facts straight. Anyways, at the end of the day, it's just another ***** dead.

The PokéCommunity

Meta

Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.